Scott Hahn and "fallible collection of infallible documents"

[mcq72]

No, a principle tends not to be explicitly defined or clarified until it is challenged, by persons or new developments or information. This is also true in Protestantism, but more implicit.

Well I was thinking of the example of the IC, or Assumption, as examples. So I partly agree. Yet may be sometimes more than principle. I mean Mary either went up bodily or she did not. Mary was without original sin or she was.

 

[lanman87]

In the Church, there’s room for diversity of opinion as long as certain essentials are held on common.

That is also what American Evangelical Christianity teaches. That is why you see gatherings of people from multiple denominations worshiping together and serving together fairly often.

From what I saw in your previous posts, I see you may be frustrated in not getting a consistent answer from Catholics as you attempt to understand us. Is that a fair assessment?

That is certainly part of it. It seems the goalpost get moved based on who you are talking to.

 

[lanman87]

Why is it absurd that we agree with Jerome, Gregory the Great, and all those theologians I listed when it comes to the Deuterocanon?

I find it absurd that Catholicism decided that all of them are wrong and chose the weaker historical position. Even New Advent admits that during the middles ages,

“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.”

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

@Ianman87,

Thank you for illustrating what Evangelicals teach.

Respectfully, we do what we do is as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ( That’s what Jesus prayed for ) whereas your model is a bunch of separate communities of different denominations.

As for the canon, the quote says unequivocally. That means many were found to support their canonicity; even if many had reservations. That’s not a historically weak position.

As for my assessment and your opinion on it: I can certainly understand your frustration. We suffer similarly with Protestants.

 

[lanman87]

As for the canon, the quote says unequivocally. That means many were found to support their canonicity; even if many had reservations. That’s not a historically weak position.

We will just have to agree to disagree on that statement. I take the entire statement from New Advent as saying that there was a group that openly disagreed with the Deuterocanon being part of the Old Testament and most everyone else was uncertain. That most of those who really held those book in high esteem still weren’t certain of their status as Scripture.

A historically strong position would be that there was always a strong majority who treated the books as Canon and a small minority who was uncertain and a smaller minority who disagreed. And that smaller minority would be made of Theologians that were surrounded in controversy. Instead that list that disagreed is made up of revered and highly valued theologians.

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

Your statement, @lanman87; reminds me of the position taken by scientists in the natural sciences regarding positions in say, physics.

At first, there’s reservations from some leading figures and later on does a consensus of scientists form.

 

[lanman87]

At first, there’s reservations from some leading figures and later on does a consensus of scientists form.

Yes, as experiments are performed and documented and evaluated a consensus of scientist on a subject forms.

So what did the 16th Century church know about the books in question that the church in the middle ages didn’t? What new evidence came to light? And why was it suddenly important to declare a dogma on those particular books when, historically, the church had been split on the issue?

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

My answer to your question, @Ianman87; is this:

The Septuagint that the canon is based on was a historically accepted canon with a long tradition in the Church. The previous councils concerning the canon were not ecumenical councils. Once the Protestant revolt occurred and accepted a Jewish biblical canon; the Church called an ecumenical council to settle the issues the rebels brought up.

I think, regarding the canon; ( I don’t have hard data on this deduction as I’ll admit I’m speculating ) the Church had to decide whether to accept an ancient Christian canon or a Jewish canon and the Council Fathers chose the Septuagint.

 

[lanman87]

Once the Protestant revolt occurred and accepted a Jewish biblical canon; the Church called an ecumenical council to settle the issues the rebels brought up.

My answer to that is that what Luther believed about the Dueterocanon was neither new nor unusual. Even many Catholic contemporaries of Luther had the same belief about the books in question. Why did their belief not cause a council to settle the question, but Luther’s did?

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

They didn’t lead a revolt against the Church, @lanman87. That’s why. The Church was responding to heresy.

 

[lanman87]

The Church was responding to heresy.

But why was this particular part of Luther’s beliefs considered heresy? When it wasn’t considered heresy for others, like Cardinal Cajetan, who held the same belief?

 

[Maccabaeus2165]

@lanman87, I don’t know if his differences over the canon was considered heresy or not. The fact was, it was part of the Protestant package and the Church affirmed 1,500 years of teaching and Tradition over the Protestant innovations.

 

[Peter_Jericho]

Peter_Jericho:

hope you can see, or will see, how that makes Evangelical Protestants downright absurd in our eyes.

Maybe I missed something, but are what about regular Protestants, or Lutherans or Anglicans?

In America, Evangelicals ARE the regular Protestants.

 

[mcq72]

find it absurd that Catholicism decided that all of them are wrong and chose the weaker historical position.

Reminds me of how VHS beat out Beta. Beta was better quality but better marketing of VHS won the battle, won the day…until digital CD came along lol

 

[mcq72]

At first, there’s reservations from some leading figures and later on does a consensus of scientists form.

Well, sometimes consensus gets it right, and sometimes wrong. But at least science can totally reverse itself and correct its errors.(consensus of flat earth, geocentrism etc.)

 

[mcq72]

think, regarding the canon; ( I don’t have hard data on this deduction as I’ll admit I’m speculating ) the Church had to decide whether to accept an ancient Christian canon or a Jewish canon and the Council Fathers chose the Septuagint.

So they chose a supposed Jewish canon in the Septuagint…minus a few books?

The Church was responding to heresy.

No they were responding to a perceived rebellion. Freedom of thought, diversity on canon was a casualty for all.

The fact was, it was part of the Protestant package and the Church affirmed 1,500 years of teaching and Tradition over the Protestant innovations.

Innovations hardly. The church chose again not to listen to sound reasoning on the matter, from within the CC.

 

[adf417]

lanman87:

find it absurd that Catholicism decided that all of them are wrong and chose the weaker historical position.

Reminds me of how VHS beat out Beta. Beta was better quality but better marketing of VHS won the battle, won the day…until digital CD came along lol

Billy Graham was/is one of my favorite non-Catholics says:

So we as Christians are in the world. We come in contact with the world, and yet we retain our distinctive kingdom character and refuse to let the world press us into its mold.
Billy Graham: In the World, But Not of It

It is also my understanding that the favored position at Nicaea was non-Trinitarin, and look where we are.

Peace!!!

 

[mcq72]

It is also my understanding that the favored position at Nicaea was non-Trinitarin, and look where we are.

Interesting…never heard that, but yes it was close and topsy turvy (back and forth in the east).

“What have you done for me lately” is an ever pursuing thought. A sort of perseverance, that having begun in His graces and truth, we continue, to the end. It is not once right always right, but diligence in being truly reliant on Him for truth on every matter that comes up thru the ages, As such, conditional, not guaranteed, infallibility (rightness) in our decrees

 

[Peter_Jericho]

Well, the CC used to be a lot lot lot more under “and/both” mindset than now. Just take a look at Nicene decrees and Trents, right up to 1950 Assumption decree…no longer as free in diversity of thought, and a whole lot more “essentials”, with maybe more to come.

We’re only too well aware, believe you me.

 

[Peter_Jericho]

In the Church, there’s room for diversity of opinion as long as certain essentials are held on common.

That is also what American Evangelical Christianity teaches.

In principle, yes. To quote The Encyclopedia Britannica, “The term fundamentalist was coined in 1920 to describe conservative Evangelical Protestants who supported the principles expounded in The Fundamentals.” But anyone with experience knows that, while talk about agreement on ‘the fundamentals’ sounds quite tolerant, Fundamentalists are anything but.